RESUMEN
Atypical femoral fractures (AFF) are stress or insufficiency fractures induced by low energy trauma or no trauma, frequently correlated with prolonged bisphosphonate therapy. The diagnosis follows major and minor criteria, originally described by the Task Force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research in 2010 and updated in 2014. However, the definition of AFFs in the report excluded periprosthetic fractures. When atypical fractures occur close to a prosthetic implant the situation become critical, the surgical treatment is often demolitive and supported by medical treatment. Moreover, acute ORIF as a first line treatment is frequently burdened by a high failure rate , and often a stem revision is required as second line treatment. The healing process is long and difficult with poor functional results and impairing outcomes. We present a case treated at our institution of a 78 year old woman with a history of a femoral atypical periprosthetic fracture, complicated by multiple surgical revisions. Its arduous management reflects all the difficulties that these type of fractures could present to the surgeon, while its good final result may teach us how to approach them in a correct way.
RESUMEN
Aim To demonstrate a reduction of risk factors ray-depending in proximal femur nailing of intertrochanteric femur fractures, comparing standard technique with computer-assisted navigation system. Methods One hundred patients hospitalised between October 2021 and June 2022 with intertrochanteric femur fractures type 31-A1 and 31-A2 were prospectively enrolled and divided randomly into two groups. A study group was treated with computer-assisted navigation system ATLAS (Masmec Biomed, Modugno, Bari, Italy) (20 patients), while a control group received the standard nailing technique. The same intertrochanteric nail was implanted by a single senior surgeon, Endovis BA 2 (EBA2, Citieffe, Calderara di Reno, Bologna, Italy). The following data were recorded: the setup time of operating room (STOR; minutes); surgical time (ST; minutes); radiation exposure time (ETIR; seconds) and dose area product (DAP; cGy·cm2). Results Patients underwent femur nailing with computer-assisted navigation system reported more set-up time of operating room (24.87±4.58; p<0.01), less surgical time (26.15±5.80; p<0.01), less time of radiant exposure (4.84±2.07; p<0.01) and lower dose area product (16.26±2.91; p<0.01). Conclusion The preliminary study demonstrated that computerassisted navigation allowed a better surgical technique standardization, significantly reduced exposure to ionizing radiation, including a reduction in surgical time. The ATLAS system could also play a key role in residents improving learning curve.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Coronal shear fractures of the distal humerus are uncommon injuries representing 6% of distal humeral fractures. There is no univocal consensus about the correct management of this type of fracture. A national survey was conducted to gain more insight into the current classification, diagnosis and treatment of coronal shear fractures in Italy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A postal survey was sent to all AO Italian members including residency orthopaedic surgeons. The survey consisted of general questions about personal experience in the management of these fractures: types of classification systems used, surgical approaches, treatment options and rehabilitation programs. RESULTS: 114 orthopaedic surgeons answered a 13-items questionnaire. The most used classification system was AO/OTA (72,8%). Independent screws and if necessary plates were the most answered regarding surgical treatment (81,6%). The most encountered post-surgical complication was stiffening of the elbow (81,6%). CONCLUSION: An algorithm of treatment has been proposed. To better classify coronal shear fractures, the authors recommended the integration of two classification systems: AO and Dubberley classifications. In the case of posterior wall comminution, a Kocher extensile approach is recommended, otherwise, if a posterior wall is intact, Kocher or Kaplan approach can be used. The posterior transolecranic approach can be reserved to Dubberley type III or AO 13B3.3. The best treatment choice is represented by independent screws and plates placed according to fracture patterns while arthroplasty is indicated when a stable ORIF is not possible. Mobilization is postponed for about 2 weeks.
Asunto(s)
Fracturas Craneales , Humanos , Húmero , Algoritmos , Artroplastia , Italia/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
Background: Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) is a surgical option for patients older than 40 years old who are affected by patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Regarding the complications of PFAs, few studies have investigated periprosthetic fractures. The purpose of this literature review was to highlight a previously overlooked complication of primary prosthetic surgery of the patellofemoral joint. Methods: Three literature databases were searched for studies published between 2000 to 2020 using relevant keywords. A total of 4,942 articles were originally identified. After excluding duplicates and analysing the titles and abstracts, 20 studies were considered. From these, data regarding the number of cases, clinical outcomes and complications were extracted. Results: Among the 20 selected articles, only one described periprosthetic fractures as a complication of PFAs. Herein, we also report an illustrative case of an unknown fracture complication. No cases in the literature were found that described the type of complications experienced by our patient during the postoperative period. Conclusions: This review confirms the lack of data about clinical outcomes and fracture complications of PFAs. In primary prosthetic surgery of the patellofemoral joint, patient selection and close consideration of demographic factors (such as BMI and age) and intraoperative factors (such as patellar thickness and size of the trochlear component) play a key role in optimising pre-operative planning to avoid intraoperative periprosthetic fractures.
RESUMEN
Introduction: As the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) surgery has dramatically increased in the last few decades, many complications have followed through. The periprosthetic fracture, at the moment, is still a subject of debate in the orthopedic world. In this monocentric study, along with a literature review of periprosthetic humeral fractures, we would present our institutional experience with the treatment of periprosthetic humeral fractures with a posterior humeral approach, posterior cortex plate fixation, anterior strut allograft, screws, and cerclage wires. Materials and Methods: Our study consisted in a prospective monocentric study based on 18 patients, with a mean age of 75.3 years (range 64-88), all following a reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (RTSA). Postoperative follow-ups were taken at 1, 6, and 12 months with objective measurement of shoulder motion and strength, while clinical outcome measures were assessed using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES score) and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Together with that, we performed a literature review focused on the management of periprosthetic humeral fractures after shoulder arthroplasty. Results: All fractures consolidated without complication at a mean 4.2 months (range 3-6). At final follow-up, the average active shoulder flexion was 88° (range 62-129°), active abduction 73° (range 52-91°) and active external rotation 22° (range 3-56°). The average ASES score was 73 (range 59-97), while average VAS score was 1.1 (range 0-3). Discussion: Surgical treatment of periprosthetic humeral fractures following a shoulder arthroplasty remains a hard challenge for every surgeon, and their treatment must consider fracture's location, displacement, and local bone quality. Conclusions: The posterior approach with a posterior plate placement and anterior strut allograft, which is appliable only in case of a B or C type fracture according to Worland classification, could be a good treatment option for periprosthetic humeral fractures.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric non-union are rare but challenging complications. In the present study, we investigate the use of a 95° blade, in association with biological and mechanical augmentation, in the management of intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric femoral non-unions. METHODS: Between October 2015 and February 2021, a retrospective cohort study was conducted at our institution to investigate the use of a 95° blade, in association with biological and mechanical augmentation, in the management of intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric femoral non-unions, following the mechanical failure of the first device. All the patients underwent a clinical and radiographic follow-up at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 18 months; at each follow-up, a plain radiograph of the femur was performed and patients were assessed using Harris Hip Score (HHS) and the Short Form-12 (SF-12) questionnaire. RESULTS: From October 2015 and February 2021, 40 proximal femur non-unions were managed at our Institution. Fifteen patients out of forty (37.5%) met the inclusion criteria. The main data of the study are summarized in Table 1; patients' mean was 57 years old (range 19-83); 10 males and 5 females were included in the study. All the patients completely healed clinically and radiologically at an average of 6.1 months (range 4-13). All these patients returned to their pre-injury mobility status. During an average follow-up period of 25 months (range 8-60), the observed complications included wound dehiscence, which was treated with a superficial surgical debridement, a below-the-knee deep vein thrombosis, and a blade plate failure 3 months after the first revision surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the treatment of inter-and sub-trochanteric non-unions with a 95° blade plate, medial strut allograft, and bone autograft obtained with RIA system, together with a varus malalignment correction, leads to a high percentage of bone healing, with a low incidence of complications and good clinical outcome.